Imaculata Reviews

Barbie (I) (2023)

Funny and entertaining but kind of a mess

[7/10 · 30 July 2023]

The Barbie movie is a very mixed bag. It tries to appeal to both young girls and adults it seems, but this leads it to be very inconsistent with its humor. Margot Robbie does a fantastic job as Barbie and especially the opening works really well in highlighting the absurdity of Barbie's world, where its houses are all open and have no stairs, and its showers have no water and the fridge is filled with a drawing of groceries. All that works fantastic. But mixed into this is a lot of adult humor and sexual innuendo, which makes for a strange mix. It isn't until after the first act, where the movie tries to be more than just a movie about toys, that it kind of falls apart.

The Barbie movie has a lot to say about gender rolls, and that is probably a healthy thing for the audience (even men) to think about. But if you are a male viewer, and if all you took from this movie is that "it hates men", then you completely missed the point. The movie critiques the role of men and women in society and it also critiques Barbie dolls and their depiction of what a girl should be. It pokes fun at it, while never completely turning against Barbie as a product. This is a Barbie movie after all. That this toy movie tries to be more than what one might expect out of such a film, is a good thing, including criticizing gender stereotypes. But the execution leaves more to be desired.

There is plenty to critique about the Barbie movie that is valid. The Barbie movie tries to do a lot of things, and especially towards the third act it becomes kind of a mess. The movie could have benefited from a bit more focus. Instead, it is all over the place.

Just the plot of Barbie and Ken being confronted with the real world, probably would have been enough for a whole movie. But to the movie's credit, it wants to be more than what the audience expects out of a Barbie movie. I would argue, too much.

There's the plot of Mattel trying to capture Barbie, with the awkwardness of a Mattel product (what this movie is) critiquing Mattel. It never feels entirely earnest.

Then there's the plot of Barbie seeking out the child she belongs to and reconnecting with her. This plot works the best, but it is kind of undermined by everything else that is going on.

Then there's the side plot of Barbie meeting her creator, which at first feels like a random easter egg, but then later is brought back again towards the end of the movie, without really fitting in with all the other plots. The Barbie movie is very inconsistent regarding which world is magical and which is not. At first it seems as if Barbie-land is the place that is magical and unrealistic, which during the opening is the source of a lot of humor. Once Barbie and Ken visit the real world, the contrast leads to more humor. But then they start mixing in magical elements in the real world, and things become very messy. Such as Mattel having a mysterious floor where Barbie's deceased creator is still alive. This is later explained away as a haunting with a throw away line, but that doesn't quite explain it either. The movie seems to forget which of the two was the magical world and this ends up undermining the world building. It was a side plot we didn't need in the first place.

Then there is the plot of Ken realizing men rule the world and learning traditional male stereotypes, and then bringing all that back to Barbie-land. This plot feels a bit disjointed. It ends up dragging the third act back to Barbie-land, when it feels all that belongs to stay in the first act. Everything with Barbie trying to make the other Barbies remember who they are, and revisiting ugly Barbie, should have been cut. It feels like a whole extra movie tacked onto a movie that already has plenty going on.

All in all, it is a bit of a mess storywise. This script could have used a bit more editing. Also, it ends on a joke about Barbie looking forward to her first visit to a gynaecologist, which is a bit of low hanging fruit. When you try so hard to make a movie that has something to say about gender rolls, this is probably not the line should end on. Suddenly the story about a deleted elaborate farting scene makes a lot more sense.

As a comedy movie, you can't aim for a high bar story wise, when your movie's comedy is aiming for the lowest bar. It doesn't seem to work.

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020)

Gets almost everything wrong

[4/10 · 1 January 2021]

It is surprising given the high quality of the first Wonder Woman movie, how bad this sequel is. It has all the flaws of the first movie (a disappointing climax with a CGI baddie) and then does everything else wrong as well. I'd say that the only thing that actually works in this film, are Gal Gadot and her chemistry with Chris Pine. Everything else, from the premise, the tone, the humor, the period, the plot, the action, it is all poorly done.

I think the movie's worst mistake, is that it gets the 80's wrong, despite it being in the title. The plot also has a lot of trouble getting started, and the movie never really pulls you in as a viewer. Then there are a bunch of dreadful sloppy factual mistakes, that could have been easily prevented if the writers had done the bare minimum of research. And these are not nitpicky mistakes either, they are things most people know. Such as that you can't fly a jet from New York to Cairo without refueling, and that a WWI pilot would not be able to just fly a modern jet in the first place. These things would be hard to ignore, even if the rest of the film was any good.

Pedro Pascal is a wonderful actor, but he is terrible in this. He serves as one of the movie's villains, when the movie didn't need more than one. But both his look and cheesy overacting are jarring to say the least. I found it impossible to take him serious as a villain at any point on the movie, and he never really feels like a serious threat to Wonder Woman. I think this is partially due to the fact that the stakes of the movie never materialize. It never feels like there are any real stakes and so it is hard to care about the plot or the central conflict, which inevitably revolves around a bit of sloppy writing. The penultimate climax feels far fetched and unearned. And then the movie falls back into the same mistake as the first movie, with a boring CGI fight. You'd think they would have taken the criticism of the first movie to heart.

I am glad I didn't have to watch this in a theater, but I don't think it is even worth watching for free.

The Mandalorian: Chapter 15: The Believer (2020) Season 2, Episode 7

A contrived plot

[5/10 · 14 December 2020]

The Believer is easily the episode with the weakest writing in the entire season. It feels as if the writers had just an idea for one cool action scene, and failed to write a cohesive plot around it. There are a lot of loose elements in this episode that never really come together in a satisfying manner, and certain plot points feel horribly contrived. This episode highlights one of the main weaknesses of the show as a whole (the weak writing), and puts it under a microscope for all to see.

Even more odd is that the episode leaves the main characters exactly where they were at the start of the episode, making this whole episode feel like a redundant fetch-quest. It feels like such a waste of time, considering we are one episode away from the season finale. They could be setting up the villain, but instead the writers waste time with more planet hopping. Can someone punch up these scripts for a change?

The Mandalorian (2019– )

Visually stimulating but narratively empty

[6/10 · 30 November 2020]

The Mandolorian gets a lot of things right about Star Wars. It has the look and feel of the universe created by George Lucas, while also expanding its universe and paying hommage to the vast amount of expanded material. It walks a fine line between the now three established movie universes, while also including elements from the animated series. Visually it is a feast for the eyes, with incredible visual and practical effects, and gorgeous sets and costumes. There is also plenty of fan service, although it is rarely jarring. But if only the writing was a little better.

There is no character development to speak of, there is very little tension, and it is tonally very inconsistent. Almost every episode feels disjointed, as if remnants of various scattered ideas for that episode were just thrown together. Rarely does an episode for this show have a satisfying set up or conclusion and there are very little surprises or twists. Many plot points are often left unused, as if they were elements of scrapped ideas for that episode. The main character feels invincible and solves every situation by just shooting his way out, which severely undermines any chance for suspense. The main antagonist Moff Gideon, played by the fantastic Giancarlo Espesito, is given very little to do and the show does not do enough to build him up as a credible threat. The one-off adventure in every episode also feels like a dated fomat for this day and age, in a time when most shows construct larger narratives across multiple episodes.

The show is intended to be a mix between a western and a pulpy space opera, but it never really commits to its western angle, which is a real shame. It also becomes apparent after the first few episodes, what a problem it is to have your main character always be masked. Plus the writers clearly struggle with writing any dialogue for any of the characters. While all these problems could be forgiven for a first season, they are just as present in the second season. How is it possible that a show with such a big budget, has such weak writing? The show has yet to produce an episode with a plot that rises above (or equals) that of a saturday morning cartoon... and that is a very low bar.

It (I) (2017)

Does a much better job at the suspense and characters

[9/10 · 5 October 2017]

When reviewing this film, it is almost impossible to ignore the older TV movie that came before it. While I greatly enjoyed Tim Curry's portrayal of the killer clown, the TV movie hasn't endured the test of time well. The TV movie was not without its flaws; most notably in the special effects, acting and the actual horror. So it is great to see another director have a go at translating the source material to the screen. Personally I feel that whenever a movie is remade, something new has to be added, or something needs to be improved over the original. I am happy to say that this is definitely the case with this remake.

The 2017 version of It immediately distances itself from the TV movie, by being a lot more violent regarding how Georgie dies. It mostly follows the same beats as the TV movie, but I feel it is more successful in fleshing out the characters (especially the children) and in setting the stakes. It is also a lot more suspenseful, and manages to more effectively communicate the effects that "It" has on the town itself, and not just on the children.

It has quite a lot of jump scares, but several are really well done. I was fortunate enough to view this movie with an audience that was susceptible to It's scares, which always makes a horror movie a lot more enjoyable to watch. It is great to see the entire audience jump and scream simultaneously, and be thoroughly invested in the movie.

That said, I do feel that Tim Curry was a better clown. Curry's performance was more nuanced and realistic, like an actual adult that preys on innocent children. Whereas in this new rendition, the clown is perhaps the least frightening thing in the movie. Curry felt more like an actual threat, whereas the clown in this version mostly just flails his arms a lot, while running at the children, and not doing much else. This undermines the suspense a bit, because it feels like the clown is holding its punches throughout the movie. And the final confrontation with the clown made the clown even less threatening. I'm also not a fan of the clown's new design. It now looks like an obvious scary clown, that is trying too hard to be scary. While Curry's clown looked like a regular clown at first glance, which I ultimately find a lot more scary.

But in other areas I was pleasantly surprised with the visual design. The sets are gorgeous and convincing, the clown's transformations do look creepy, and benefit a lot from modern visual effects. I also love that we got a whole different take on It's deadlights (although not called out as such during the film).

But the story has two parts of course. And so it remains to be seen if the second movie will be just as good. With the TV movie, when it came to the part with the adults, the acting was pretty terrible. And the ending was greatly undermined by the limited effects of that time. That part is left for a sequel with the 2017 version, which I think is a good choice. It will leave them more time to flesh out the adults, and build a more coherent ending to a story that truth be told is all over the place. But will they be able to get us just as invested in the stuff with the adults, as they did with the children? I guess we'll have to wait and see when the second movie comes out.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

A lot better than I expected

[8/10 · 2 June 2017]

This movie was a lot better than I was expecting. Reviews of this movie have been pretty cynical and negative, but I don't think the negativity is deserved. This is a fun movie. A lot of the old cast returned for this film, and it bookends the series in a lovely way. It's not perfect, and we'll get into that below. But if you are looking for a fun adventure movie, with a lot of laughs, this movie fills all those check boxes.

Lets first get the negatives out of the way, which are few, but deserve mention. The two new leads in this film are rookies, and not strong enough as actors to carry this movie. They are adequate, but never succeed in convincing you that they deserve being in this movie, contrary to Orlando Bloom and Kyra Knightley in the past. Fortunately the old cast are able to bare the weight of the movie, with both Rush and Depp doing a great job.

There's a scene where they show a young Jack Sparrow, and as usual, the effect for that is not good. Please Hollywood, stop de-aging actors with CGI! It looks terrible. His mouth looked like it had just been pasted on. It was really weird and jarring. Not as jarring as CGI Peter Cushing in Rogue One, but pretty jarring none the less. There is no reason to do this with CGI. Just cast a young actor who looks enough like a young Depp and you're done. It's cheaper, and the audience will accept it more easily, instead of being distracted by a lousy effect.

The script is okay, although there is a lot of plot convenience, and a lot of stuff that defies physics. But I can look past that, because this is not a movie franchise that should be taken too seriously. The dialogue in the beginning is a bit stiff though, especially when the two new leads are basically telling the audience their backstories. Show, don't tell! (But don't show it with bad de-aging CGI!) Now for the positives, Depp does a great job. I thought that I would be bored of Jack Sparrow by now, but I guess not. Both he and Rush seemed to be having fun, and giving it their best. And it is fun watching these actors just having a lot of joy on set. The humor is also really on point. Most of the jokes work.

The action is pretty fantastic. I was amazed by some of the crazy action scenes that they came up with, especially during the very strong opening of the film. Yes, it is absurd and over the top, but there was a lot of practical stuff, and just good old stunt work. It was so much fun to watch. I feel that they could have ended the film perhaps with a big battle, but the ending we got instead sufficed.

The design of the ghost pirates and their ship is really well done. And the undead sharks (which you can see in the trailer) were pretty creepy. I also liked the quality of most of the special effects. The ships all look really good. The high production values are clearly on display. There's some green screening here and there, but I think the general audience will not even notice that. The set designs are fantastic, and there's just a lot of awesome practical stuff in the film.

So as you can tell, I had a lot of fun at this film. I was not disappointed in the slightest. Stick around till after the credits for the usual post credits scene. But I could be mistaken, but isn't this going to be the last PotC film? Then why are we getting another post credits teaser? And why does the post credits scene seem to contradict the finale of the movie? Ehh... whatever.

Arrival (II) (2016)

Not as clever as many reviews make it out to be

[7/10 · 19 March 2017]

I have to admit, I was a little bit disappointed with this movie. This was touted as one of the best and most intelligent sci-fi movies of the year, and it didn't quite live up to all that praise. It's not a bad movie though. The acting is solid, the directing, sound design and visuals are really good. But the story is kind of bland. For a movie that is all about communication, I thought it was a little bit odd that the most obvious way of communication (pictures) was completely ignored. The movie also depicts Russia and China as paranoid villains, while America of course saves the day. In light of history, this is hard to believe. It is also very difficult to believe that China, a country whose alphabet is literally a bunch of pictures, would not try to communicate with pictures, and instead is presented as the aggressor against the aliens. In the end, the climax of the movie is basically one big Deux Ex Machina, and that is a tough pill to swallow. Could they not have thought of a resolution that was a little bit more clever, and not the equivalent of pulling a rabbit out of a hat? The whole movie is about communication, so shouldn't the movie end with a break through in communication? So while this is not a bad movie, it's not a very good sci-fi movie. It needed a better script.

The Jungle Book (2016)

Never manages to sell the illusion

[6/10 · 19 March 2017]

Jungle Book is a marvelous technical wonder, that deserves to be praised for the excellent acting of its young leading actor. It can't have been easy to act in front of so many green screens to animals that aren't really there, and to make it seem like he is actually looking at them. But that aside, the movie fails to sell you on the illusion completely. You are constantly aware that you are looking at CGI animals, and it is distracting from start to finish. Don't get me wrong, occasionally the animals look almost lifelike. And the way actors and animals are integrated into the environments is really well done... but it's not enough. The main antagonist, does not look like a real tiger, and you see a lot of him. Many other main characters also look fake, and as an audience it is almost impossible not to spot where the illusion breaks. You're just constantly looking for the flaws, whether you want to or not. Second, the movie fails to surpass or equal the animated movie. There are constant nods to the original, which just makes you wish you were watching that movie instead. They do some things different, but if you've seen the original animated Disney movie that this is based on, then you are constantly wondering "will they do this", and "will they do that". It's great to see Baloo sing Bear Necessities, but it's only done partially, and leaves you wanting for the full song. And then there are other songs that you really look forward to (Like Ka's song), but are left out, or only played during the end credits. The recent Beauty and the Beast live action movie was a literal copy of the animated movie, but at least it knew what it wanted to be. Jungle Book doesn't seem to know if it wants to be an homage to the animated film, or BE the animated film. And so it fails at both. The ending also feels a bit sudden. It seems as if the movie should have ended with Mowgli returning to the village, but it just ends abruptly. It doesn't feel entirely satisfying. It also feels like a lot of scenes may have perished on the cutting room floor for this film. This is not a terrible film, but ultimately it's a bit forgettable. It just makes you want to watch the original.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

Rogue One - Screen writing zero

[6/10 · 14 December 2016]

I wanted to like this movie so badly, but I just couldn't. I am a huge Star Wars fan, but the screen writing for this film is just terrible. That's not to say that there aren't things to like in this film. But it's the huge amount of fan service that kills it.

None of the characters, except the main character, get any development. The introduction of all the characters is disjointed and ham-fisted. And especially in the beginning the movie jumps all over the place hastily. It is as if they took very little time to write actual scenes.

The visual effects are really good. But unfortunately the movie relies very heavily on the inclusion of one completely CGI actor, who simply does not look convincing. They give him a lot of screen time and lines too, but it is just so distracting.

But the biggest problem is that it is just crammed full of fan service. The movie feels very strongly like a piece of fan fiction. There are also no surprises at all in the film. It is predictable from beginning to end. The movie keeps throwing references to the original trilogy, or to the Expanded Universe in your face, to the point where it becomes extremely cringe worthy.

The finale is spectacular, but by that point you still don't care about any of the characters or the plot... the movie fails to make the audience really care. A spectacular finale without emotion, is like a fireworks show without an audience: A lot of noise and wasted money.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

Entertaining, but with a lot of problems

[7/10 · 21 November 2016]

Let me say up front that this is not a bad movie. But I notice a lot of Potter-fans are looking at this movie through rose-colored glasses, and are unable to see its obvious flaws. This is a pretty flawed movie. Fun, but not great.

But lets start with the good. The characters are fun, the visuals are stunning and impressive. And the amazing Potter atmosphere of whimsy is all over this film. I also liked how the music of the movie starts with the soft Potter-theme, and then immediately abandons it for the rest of the film, and sticks with its own new theme music. There's plenty of references for fans to enjoy, but you do not need to be a Potter fan to understand what is going on in the film. This movie can very much stand on its own.

But now the bad. The movie seems to forget that it has a plot for about half of its running time. For most of the movie we follow the main character in his quest to retrieve his missing animals all over New York, which is fun, but has very little to do with the main plot. It seems as if the movie suddenly remembers that it has a villain (who is briefly mentioned with quick flashes of newspapers during the opening) and it forgets that it still has to build towards a finale. Out of nowhere the final act is suddenly dropped into the movie. That is a bit sloppy, and it leaves the main villain very undeveloped. I also think many of the characters are a bit shallow, and steeped in stereotypes and clichés.

Technically, the movie feels a bit sloppily edited at times, which makes some scenes hard to follow. And especially during the final act there are a lot of bright flashing lights that are a pain on the eyes if you are sitting in a dark theater.

That said, I was still entertained. But the film critic in me feels that this should have been a lot better. I also noticed that I had a hard time remembering the names of most of the main characters.

Train to Busan (2016)

Zombies on a train

[8/10 · 25 September 2016]

This Korean zombie film is a real gem. It's a very recent movie, and you can tell they had a good budget for this. What I love about these sorts of movies, is when it's all about the survivors having to be clever to overcome frightening and deadly obstacles.Train to Busan is both original in its concept, and great in its execution. It is a movie that is quite clever in how it uses its core premise; the train. They do so much with the concept, plus they keep it relatively realistic. The movie also delivers some great social criticism. Like is often the case with zombie movies, the real monsters are the people.

Is it a perfect film? No. I thought the ending was a bit anti-climactic. And there was some use of CGI which looked a bit fake. Specifically some plumes of smoke and fires, and those are the sorts of things they could have done practically. At the same time, the movie deserves praise for it's huge establishing shots where various large train stations and towns really look completely abandoned. There's also a couple of set pieces towards the end that are really impressive.

Most importantly, the movie isn't predictable. I had no idea who would live and who would die. And best of all, there were many scenes where I was just grinning and laughing. The movie is fun. The sheer chaos on display in this film is very enjoyable. The movie does not devolve into the grotesque, like so many movies in this genre do. Instead, it focuses on the characters, and on interesting plot developments. And it has so much fun with the genre. It is also a very well paced, and well shot film. It is filmed and paced very much like an American movie.

If all of this sounds like a ton of praise... I guess it is. It's a very enjoyable movie. Go see it.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Fails to deliver on its suspense and on the ending

[6/10 · 2 June 2016]

I watched Deathgasm, Sharknado 2, and The Witch in a row. But ironically, this was the least entertaining movie of the three.

Yes, the acting, setting and mood are fantastic. Yes the cinematography is great. And yes, it has a really good creepy soundtrack. But not much happens in the movie! It's boring. Me and my friends had to keep making jokes to maintain our attention. The movie tries so hard to build suspense, but when the suspense ultimately has no pay off, it undermines the stakes of the movie. And you know, as nonreligious viewers we're just not all that frightened by goats, devils, and witchcraft. You have to try really hard to make that scary. And I'm told there's plenty of people that think this movie is really scary. But I don't see it.

But what really does the movie in, is the fact that it has an unsatisfying ending. You can see it coming from miles away, and there isn't much of a pay off or a twist. And that's a shame, because everyone involved delivers a stellar performance.

Ultimately though, The Witch fails to deliver.

The Fog (1980)

Note to self, don't buy a weak plywood front door

[7/10 · 27 May 2016]

The Fog is a low budget horror classic by the amazing filmmaker John Carpenter. It has nothing to do with Stephen King's The Mist, despite both being released in the same year (1980).

The movie was released after carpenter had already earned great praise with Halloween. It is about a small Californian coastal town of Antonia Bay, that is engulfed in a ghostly glowing fog. Within the fog are vengeful spirits, that are seeking their revenge for something that happened long ago.

Its a simple story, but the movie really knows how to make a concept as basic as just "fog" suspenseful. It kind of feels like Jaws on land. The camera shots, the lighting, and the restraint, all help establish a really strong feeling of dread. The only thing that holds the movie back, is its obvious low budget, and the fact that the threat isn't very strong. But in a way, the fact that they don't show too much, adds to the film. Especially the small scale of the threat, set in a relatively small secluded location, helps the suspense a lot.

I think Carpenter was aware of the weak story, and so he keeps up the pace. However, you can never quite shake the feeling that this whole looming threat could simply be stopped by just not answering the door, and by having a door that is not made out of weak plywood. In a way, the slow shots of rolling fog are more scary than the ghosts with meat hooks IN the fog, who really seem to rely on people opening their front door if someone knocks.

You can see obviously hints of Halloween in this film. There is also great use of silence, and sudden sounds, to keep the audience on edge. There was at least one scene in the film which honestly made me jump from my seat, and I was totally not ready for it. But does it ever get scary? Meh.... maybe once. It's more of a feeling of dread, than true suspense. But it's enjoyable.

There's also a 2005 remake of this film, which according to everyone is atrocious. No surprise there. Just watch the original.

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)

Hellraiser in spaaaaace

[4/10 · 23 May 2016]

A bad Alien rip off, that is constantly having flashbacks to a different, much better movie.

This movie reeks of studio interference. Only a small part of the movie is set forcibly on a space station, while the rest either takes place in the past or the present. The parts of the movie where it flashes back to the creation of the puzzle box, are arguably the best parts of the movie. But the movie suffers from having too much Pinhead forced into it, when he wasn't even needed for the plot. The movie already has a villain, and would have worked much better if they focused on her instead. But unfortunately we end up with a plot where the motives of the villains are now a complete contradicting mess. Previously established lore is completely contradicted, and they save the big transformation of the lead villain till waaaaaay too late in the movie.

Another problem with the movie, is that they now start making quite literal connections to a pseudo Christian hell. Previous movies always kept it rather vague, and the world that the puzzle box connects to was just another dimension, rather than actually being the hell from the bible. Then again, writer Clive Barker also commits this sin in his sequel Scarlet Gospels, so who cares any more at this point? Then they end the movie by basically ripping off the ending to Aliens, and cue credits. What a waste of potential.

Captain America: Civil War (2016)

As much a Captain America as an Iron Man movie

[9/10 · 13 May 2016]

It is amazing to me that a movie like this manages to be not just a great sequel to The Winter Soldier, but also to Iron Man 3, AND Age of Ultron, and still also be a good movie. A movie like this could easily crumble under the weight of so many characters, and yet it doesn't. Most of them get plenty of plot and an arc. Enough time is also dedicated to the new characters that this movie introduces.

This is not just a mindless action movie, like Age of Ultron. This is a pretty clever movie, with a solid plot, some red herrings, and twists. Of course not all characters get equal screen time. Thor and The Hulk aren't in the movie at all. And Hawk Eye is barely in it either. Other characters such as Vision, Scarlet Witch and Black Widow do get a decent plot. Vision struggles with human behavior, Wanda struggles with people being afraid of her, and Black Widow is caught in the middle, and struggling to pick a side. But in the end, I found myself strongly agreeing with Tony Stark. Even by the end of the movie, me and my friends had strong disagreements about which character was in the right. I find this a clear sign of a very strong plot.

Where the movie especially shines is it's first half. The movie spends a lot of time explaining the conflict at the heart of the story, and addresses the cost of all the absurd destruction from The Avengers, Iron Man, The Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron. There's really good dialogue in this film. I loved hearing every characters point of view, and it's hard to argue with any of them. They all have solid motives. The new character Black Panther isn't just thrown in at random. He is central to the plot. And the plot feels very serious, just like with The Winter Soldier. It isn't until the middle of the movie, that it embraces the over the top comic book action and the humor from The Avengers. So in a way, this movie is half Winter Soldier, and half The Avengers.

As far as comic book movies go, this is one of the best so far. It stands in stark contrast to the recent Batman V Superman. How can one movie be such a mess, and another do so much right? It honestly is some kind of miracle. Considering all the characters they need to juggle in this movie, and all the plot threads they need to tie together, this is one heck of a script.

The action is also top notch. There's a lot of really good car chases and free running action scenes in this. This makes some of the action feel very grounded in reality, just as in The Winter Soldier. I also got the feeling that they made plenty of use of practical effects. Of course there is also plenty of use of CGI and this. But at no point did anything really stand out to me. Again, this is quite a miracle, considering all the different effect studios involved with this.

Stay around till after the credits. Because the movie has both a mid-credits sequence, and an after-credits sequence.

Unbreakable (2000)

Perfect in what it sets out to do. Could not have been improved on.

[10/10 · 3 May 2016]

I rate this movie a solid 10, and I feel that whenever you rate any movie a 10, it deserves a very good explanation. I don't rate movies based on what I think of other movies in that genre. Nor do I compare movies to other movies made by the same director. So, while I could compare this to The Sixth Sense, and say that I like The Sixth Sense better... How is that a good reason for a lower rating? Does that mean this movie deserves a lower score? I believe movies should be judged on their own, as stand alone products. And as a film, this movie is perfect in what it sets out to accomplish.

The movie simply has a fantastic cinematography. Every shot seems thoroughly planned out, and shot as if shooting a frame from a comic book. There are fantastic long shots in this movie, that are not just thrown in as a gimmick, but with a deliberate purpose. Some shots simply hold on a specific perspective. Too few movies seem to understand this classic style. Modern movies constantly cut. Cut, cut cut... -and this is ruining movies. Just hold a shot for a few seconds! Have some patience for crying out loud! And that's what this movie does. It takes its time, and it demands some patience from its audience. You don't need to constantly cut to new camera angles, when you can simply move the camera. And the soundtrack is the final ingredient that makes it all work. It is heroic at times, and also tender and romantic when it needs to. It is in my opinion one of James Newton Howard's best scores.

No, this is not an action movie. It is a slow drama. It is a story that needs to be told slowly. Some may regard this as a flaw. I argue that this movie would not be improved upon by making it faster. It is that slow building atmosphere that makes the movie so good. It is well acted, and it is one of the few movies in which I find Samuel L Jackson totally believable as a character who is not shouting profanities all the time. In fact, this may be one of his best acting roles. Bruce Willis is also fantastic in this. I also feel that not a single line of dialogue is off, or out of place.

Some have called the plot twist predictable. Well, I've seen plenty of people be caught off guard by the twist, myself included, so I see nothing wrong with it. But while the twist is a good way to bookend the movie, I think where the movie really shines is simply the fact that it as a lot of heart. It is sentimental, it is romantic, and it romanticizes the idea of the real life superhero. That is what it is all about, and if you can't embrace that concept, then this movie is simply not for you. There are scenes in this movie that still get the waterworks running, and get me crying man-tears. Call me sentimental, but the movie works for me. Maybe because it touches on a topic that is dear to my heart: The idea of the real life hero.

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

Same old tune, same problems as the previous movie

[6/10 · 30 April 2016]

This movie is a direct sequel to House of 1000 Corpses, and just like that movie, it has many of the same problems. Just like in the previous movie, it lacks characters that show any agency, and the villains are more interesting than the victims. The Devils Rejects features the return of such characters as the crazy clown Captain Spaulding, who is the most entertaining character in both movies. In this movie he has a much bigger role, which is welcome.

Rob Zombie has chosen not to exhaust weird video effects to death, this time around. Instead he has chosen for a more documentary style, with shaky camera shots, and deliberate extreme close ups. He also does sliding screen transitions, as if looking through a picture book. The movie also has a deliberate dirty look to it, and the extreme close ups help highlight the dirty look of all the freaks. I liked the direction and the style of the movie.

But again, this movie is plagued by the same problems as the previous movie. Look, I love a good horror movie. I even enjoy some of the really gory stuff. But this is just a long row of abuse scenes, many of which sexual in nature, and there's very little 'fun' to it, or suspense to it. Its again the lack of agency on behalf of the characters, and the fact that they aren't fleshed out at all. None of the victims are compelling characters. And the movie falls into the trap of a long series of ancient horror movie clichés. I'm talking so ancient, they could be fossils.

You know the drill: Characters outnumbering a villain who is only armed with a knife, and yet not making any coordinated effort to attack the villain. Waiting forever to steal a gun from the villains, then waiting forever to shoot the villain, thus giving them plenty of time and opportunity to attack, and of course the gun is not loaded. And again we have the victim running straight into the arms of Captain Spaulding, not realizing that he is part of the gang. It is literally the previous movie all over again.

The plot again goes nowhere. A bunch of victims are stuck in one location, where they make no intelligent attempt to escape or retaliate, despite having plenty of opportunity to do so. And then they all get abused and killed one by one. How are we supposed to be invested in this story? But fortunately the movie has one thing going for it. It does something that House of 1000 Corpses did not do: It takes a turn in the last half of the film. I'll give it credit for that. But it was not enough to keep me interested, since the movie had already lost me long before the turn in the plot.

And its a shame, because Captain Spaulding is entertaining, its directed well, the effects are good, and it has a nice style to it... but as a film it just sucks. There is zero suspense, and the montage at the end feels like a sloppy way to end a movie. And why does the director indulge so much in sexual abuse? I don't mind nudity, but the context is definitely rapy in nature, and just not fun to watch. When is rape (even if it borders on it) ever a good thing in a movie? I'm not condemning people who like this movie, but what do they see, that I don't?

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

Director Rob Zombie seems more in love with the villains

[6/10 · 29 April 2016]

The House of a 1000 Corpses starts off pretty good. It has a unique freaky style to it, with weird video filters, split screens and some really fun characters. The opening immediately sets the tone, and establishes a weird and funny style. Its a horror movie with a big wink to the audience.

But unfortunately, while the movie does start off strong, it quickly gets stuck in the predictable plot of a bunch of freaks kidnapping and murdering a bunch of teens. None of the victims in this plot are interesting, and none of them seem even remotely competent, or attempting to fight back. And there in lies the real problem with this movie. It feels the director was more in love with the freaks, than the victims.

A good horror movie has you rooting for the good guys. It makes you like them, and you hope that they survive. This creates suspense. Then there are also trashy horror movies, in which you just want everyone to die violently. Was this movie trying to be in the latter category? Well, it doesn't quite work. Plus the director overindulges in weird video filters, and especially shooting scenes in negative. So a style that at first seems original and refreshing, eventually outstays its welcome.

The plot also really doesn't go anywhere. Its simply a case of waiting for everyone to die.... and the outcome is as predictable as you'd expect. Even the twist at the end is entirely predictable, to the point where it is just disappointing. That cliché end-twist instantly took the rating down a notch for being so done to death.

I will give the movie credit for its excellent soundtrack, sets, costumes, and effects. The movie doesn't indulge too much in gross violence. In fact, I was surprised that a lot of violence is merely hinted at, or shown very briefly. So kudos for that. But in the end, it is just not a very compelling film. Its just mediocre.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Yes, it really is that good

[9/10 · 20 December 2015]

This movie does everything right. Right from the start, I was sucked into the story. It may not have the sort of punch that Mad Max Fury Road had, but there are so many ways this could have gone wrong, and I'm so glad they did it right. Lets first touch upon the main criticism that I've seen about this movie. People say that it follows the structure of the original movie beat for beat. And yes, this is true. However, the movie also does plenty of innovation and world building of its own. And so this movie does feel new, even though it follows the same structure.

The movie pays a lot of homage to the old movies, but not in that annoying Kingdom of the Crystal Skull way. There aren't constant wink winks to the audience. Instead they recognize lots of stuff from the old movies in a loving way. These are the sort of nods to the old movies that feel just right. Stars like Carry Fisher and Harrison Ford aren't just brought back for a cameo, but play an important part in the movie. In fact, Han Solo is one of the main characters throughout the entire movie. Leia's role is decidedly smaller, but still important. I also felt Harrison Ford did a really good job. He really was Han Solo again. Carry Fisher is just okay, but Ford IS Han Solo.

I was afraid that perhaps the new characters would not grow on me, but fortunately that wasn't the case. Finn's role is just perfect, plus it allows the movie to give the audience more insight into the structure of the empire, and what being a Storm Trooper is all about. This is the world building I was talking about earlier. The movie answers a lot of questions, even the simple ones. Rey is also a great character, but the exact opposite of Finn. Plus I really enjoyed the way the movie dispels common damsel in distress tropes with her. It was almost a slightly feminist movie in that sense, but in a good way. I think Rey's character makes the Star Wars universe more accessible to a young female audience, and that thought makes me smile a little. The movie does its best to show us that Rey is perfectly fine at saving herself.

The opening shot of the original Star Wars had its audience literally ducking in their seats, and thus succeeded at making you feel the oppressive rule of the empire with a mere visual. But The Force Awakens nails that too. Rather than steal those shots, they have new shots to achieve the same thing. A lot of the shots of imperial ships are shot at an angle from below, so they look really big.

The special effects in this are also amazing. There is so much use of real sets and practical effects. Tons of creatures are puppets, animatronics, or suit-characters. -Even some of the really big creatures are puppets, I suspect. This makes the world look real. Sure, when it comes to big battle scenes there is also liberal use of CGI. But unlike Age of Ultron, it doesn't look like CGI. It looks like the characters are really there, I also really like the way they show the interior of various ships, and show how the technology works. It makes it all feel real.

Plot wise, the movie succeeds at making the First Order feel threatening, by showing the cruelty of the empire early on. This is something that the old movies never really succeeded at. They always made the Storm Troopers look like bumbling cannon fodder, -but not so in this movie. They also have some fun with the villain, which is welcome. He isn't just some two dimensional character.

Another thing that surprised me, is how they expand on the lore of The Force. We get to see new ways in which the Force can be used, and they focus more on the mystical elements of it, and don't even mention the midichlorians from the prequels. And we get to see the Force being used a lot. If you think about it, Darth Vader didn't use the Force all that much in the original trilogy, and neither did Obi Wan. But in the Force Awakens, we see liberal use of it.

So with this avalanche of praise, is there anything bad about the movie? Yes, but it is only minor. The movie had me along for the majority of it, up until the end. The final part of the movie is where it kind of lost me. And it just didn't blow me away, like Mad Max Fury Road did. It is perhaps unfair to expect a movie to have that much of an impact, because the few times that it has happened, it was always a surprise. But that's not the only problem. The ending just was a bit lacking. It feels like the movie doesn't end on a high note, like the original movies all did. It tries to end on a cliff hanger, but it doesn't really work. And perhaps the predictability of the ending is to blame for that. I also felt some of the villains were a bit silly. Kylo Ren is just fine. But some of the others are a bit goofy (and they have goofy names too).

If you have children you owe it to them to take them to this movie. I mean it. Take them to this movie right now! They will love you for it! Come on! Reserve those tickets already. And if you are still a child at heart, then go see it as well.

Witch Board: Bunshinsaba (2004)

Well directed, but predictable, not scary and kind of a drag

[6/10 · 12 August 2015]

Bunshinsaba is your typical long-haired ghost-girl trope horror movie, that runs out of steam really fast. It has a very good first act, and is well directed, well lit, and does not rely on special effects. It also has an original premise, and is well acted. I especially liked the opening, which wasted no time to get right to the premise of the movie. The problem is, that the movie quickly turns into a paint-by-numbers of The Ring. A lot of the foreshadowing (if you can even call it that) is so obvious, that if there were any surprises or twists in the second act, they are long gone before you even get there. The movie also over-indulges in dramatic lightning strikes during close ups, and shows the ghosts way too much. This sucks the suspense right out of the movie. Halfway through the film, it started to drag, and I just wanted the movie to end. One of the movie's main problems, is that there are no stakes in the third act. The main characters have no means of stopping the ghost, and thus there is no tension. We're basically just watching the ghost kill a lot of characters that we don't like any way, with no means for the main characters of stopping her. No stakes or likable victims, means no suspense. It's a shame, because the movie is well directed, well shot, and has great use of scene lighting. I even liked the music that played over the ending credits, before it was interrupted by a standard Asian pop song. But I can't really recommend this movie. It's not bad, it's just sub par.

Interstellar (2014)

Better than 2001, and that's saying a lot

[9/10 · 5 July 2015]

A sci-fi master piece.

Well... goes to show that you really never can trust any of the critics. This movie is a master piece. I would easily put it up there with the likes of 2001 a space odyssey. Why did I listen to the reviews, and not go see this in the theater? This movie blew me away. I was not expecting much, but I got so much more. The science is solid, great acting, great direction, and a great plot. If you've been to recent Hollywood blockbusters like Jurassic World, you'd almost think competent screen writing is dead. I mean come on! Weaponized raptors? But this movie is a breath of fresh air. I already liked director Christopher Nolan for his Dark Knight trilogy, and The Prestige. But I was not expecting to like this movie as much as I did.

It takes its time to build up the story, and the characters. The plot got me hooked almost immediately. But where the movie really shines is the science. When I watch a sci-fi movie, I want to be wowed by gadgets that seem credible and original. I want to see future technology, and not nonsense. I want to see the characters make competent decisions, and not act completely irrational just for the convenience of the plot. And boy, this movie surprised me with how well written the characters are, and how logical they act. The plot did not take any cheap short cuts. it cleverly avoided the typical Hollywood plot writing, by having the characters make the right decisions, while still coming up with obstacles that are credible. On top of that, during the last part of the movie it drops a huge twist on the audience, that I honestly did not see coming. I won't spoil it here.

What I also like, is how the movie takes its time to show the aftermath of all the events. It doesn't just end, but goes on for a bit longer to show us most of the things that we want to see. There were a few moments where it seemed the movie fast forwarded a bit too fast, which was confusing at times. So the movie does demand your full attention. I suspect that maybe some scenes were cut out to reduce the running time, and may have affected the pacing of some events. I would be very curious to see an extended cut, if it exists.

Regarding the aftermath and the ending, I think this is where I actually like this movie better than 2001 a space odyssey. I know that is controversial, and many people would probably yell out "heresy" at the mere thought of liking this over Kubrick's classic. To give a quick recap of my thoughts on this famous Kubrick movie, I think it's too much style over substance. The pacing is too slow and artsy-fartsy, making the movie a chore to sit through. It has its moments for sure, and the cinematography is a work of art. However, the ending while memorable, is also very vague and open to interpretation. One might even call it a bit unsatisfying or lazy. A cop out. So perhaps this provides some context to why I like the ending of Interstellar better; it answers all of your questions. I felt the sequel to 2001, called 2010, was also much better movie as well in many ways. While it didn't have the amazing cinematography of Kubrick, it was better paced, and did answer all the questions of the previous movie and of its own. Plus it was just much more enjoyable to sit through, even on repeated viewings. I cannot say the same for 2001.

So why the comparisons with 2001? Well the two movies have a lot in common, especially near the end. If you see the movie, you'll see what I mean.

But I think I like Interstellar better. Yes, I know. Scowl at me if you want. But I think Kubrick is not the holy grail of film making, and this is a better sci-fi movie that pretty much follows very similar themes. Perhaps Interstellar would have never existed if it weren't for movies like 2001, and that is a fair argument. But I think ultimately that Interstellar is just way more satisfying. It is not afraid to bring the plot full circle, and answer all of the questions.

The Eye (2008)

An insult to the original

[3/10 · 2 June 2015]

How can anyone remake a movie, and then remove what made the movie so great to begin with?! The shocking ending. They changed the ending! This remake is not only an insult to the original, but a crime against film making. You take a really good Asian suspense movie, replace all the suspense with cheap jump scares, and then chicken out with the shocking ending. The people who made this need to apologize. This was a shameless cash grab. Plus, Jessica Alba can't act to save her life.

Do NOT watch this movie! You owe it to yourself to watch the original, and ONLY the original. Its not like an American audience can't read subtitles, so just do yourself a favor. Go watch the original with subtitles already.

Merciful Zeus, how could they remove the shocking ending?! How can you do that?! I just don't understand it. Seriously, what is the point?! If you're going to remake a movie, why take out what made it great to begin with?!

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Beyond Thunderdome on acid, with a huge budget

[9/10 · 16 May 2015]

I see a lot of negative reviews for this movie popping up. People complaining that there is a lack of story and character development, and too much action.... too much action? Really? Have these people never seen a Mad Max movie before? How is that a bad thing in a Mad Max movie? Fury Road feels like an 80's action movie, with a preposterously large budget, and it is GLORIOUS. This movie was an epic ride. So many awesome set pieces, incredible car designs, twisted and bizarre costumes and characters, and a lot of really strong warrior women as well.

I've also heard it said that this movie contains a lot of feminism. Strong female characters that kick butt, is not feminism people! There's no anti-men message here. Just a cast which is dominated by more women than men. And about time for a change! Charlize Theron is my new favorite actress after this (it used to be Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton). She really takes the spotlight, and that is about the only criticism I can think of with this movie. It's not so much about Mad Max, but about road warriors in general, and specifically Theron's character. I didn't think Tom Hardy was quite as good as Mad Max as Mel Gibson was, but he wasn't terrible. He just didn't lend enough presence to his character in this movie. Which may be a hard thing to do when the movie does not focus on Max.

Special mention should also be given to all the side characters. The villains are enjoyably menacing, especially Hugh Keays-Byrne as Immortan Joe, John Howard as the People Eater, Richard Carter as the Bullet Farmer, and I also loved Melissa Jaffer as the leader of a gang of elderly motor ladies.

Go see this movie if you like Mad Max!

Chappie (2015)

Plot holes big enough to drive a Moose through

[5/10 · 7 March 2015]

Chappie's plot relies entirely on the complete absence of any security (guards, cameras, monitoring) in the security firm that makes the Chappie security droids. A military firm mind you, of the future. Yes, unfortunately despite the incredible special effects, Chappie is one big exercise in idiot ball writing. Everything that happens in the movie relies on the complete incompetence of its characters, most importantly, absence of ANY security. Worse yet, the movie tries very hard to copy the movie Short Circuit, but fails to evoke the same emotions when it's titular character is mistreated. The characters are very unlikable, especially Chappie. The tone of the movie is inconsistent, ranging from childish to gritty and violent. And it just comes off as a Short Circuit knock off with better effects, but worse writing. The movie also reuses the same setting as District 9, which has now clearly outstayed its welcome. Sigourney Weaver is underused, and her character is badly written. She plays the CEO of a giant military security firm, that has no interest in a revolutionary new AI. If the makers of the movie were wondering when they lost their audience, that would be the moment.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Our best joke was one about butt stuff

[5/10 · 24 February 2015]

"Shaky cam, CGI blood, and poor fight choreography." "Never insult other better movies in your own film" "We thought our best joke was one about butt stuff, so we saved it till the end of the film" "We thought James Bond parodies hadn't been done to death already" "How much product placement can we put in one film...?"

If the above quotes haven't yet helped you decide if this is a movie for you, maybe the rest of my review will seal the deal. Kingsman is a poor man's James Bond parody. It is a movie painfully aware that it is not taking the spy genre seriously, and it keeps reminding us by literally mentioning how serious the James Bond movies have become. But that's strike number one. Don't mention or criticize a better movie, in your own movie. It also serves us the line "a movie is only as good as its villain". Bitter irony, since the movie has a pretty poor villain, in the form of Samuel L Jackson with a terribly forced lisp. But there is a lot bad about this movie.

Lets start with the tone. This movie is inconsistent with it tone. It starts off as a comedy, right with the animation of the cartoony opening credits, yet then follows up with a serious tone, and then switching back to comedy for the last half of the film. It is as if the movie was written by two very conflicted writers, with vastly different views about the tone of the film. The movie takes its biggest deviation in tone right about the moment where it serves us with a very violent, and poorly choreographed fight scene in a church.

Then the comedy. The movie aims for the very lowest bar in comedy. When a joke about anal sex is the best joke that you were saving for the end, you should retire as a comedy writer. The movie got only a few chuckles from the easily entertained in the audience. But several people simply left the theater. That made me realize that those people were probably wiser than me. Comedy isn't easy. James Bond was funny, because it tried to be a good exciting film, while having a charming lead drop some occasional humor in it, without completely destroying the suspense. It kept the action lighthearted, without completely going for cheap laughs. Austin Powers on the other hand, was a full-on parody that was all about having a good laugh at all the characters. It wasn't being insulting to James Bond or other spy thrillers. It was just having fun with it, and you could tell there was love in it too. Not so much with Kingsman. The humor occasionally felt spiteful, and almost offensive.

The fight choreography. I already mentioned this before, but shaky cam is just a poor way to hide bad fighting. It is what directors do when they want to ruin a fight scene, or when their actors aren't very good at fighting. By the way, it seems as if the director thinks that a hail of bullets is like rain during a bicycle ride. You just hold your hand before your eyes, and keep going, and it won't hit you.

Now the soundtrack, is occasionally pretty good, when it is isn't assaulting you with annoying licensed pop music during action scenes.

The story, is terrible. I know that it is intentionally trying to serve us a nonsense spy thriller plot. But it was just lazily written. A large plot of the finale revolves around Hollywood once again not understanding how hacking works, or how satellites work, or how computers work.

I was severely disappointed. Several people left the theater during the movie and they did not return. I should have done the same.